To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

-* MUNICIPAL LEAGUE OF SEATTLE *
LEADERSHIP IN THE PRESERVATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SINCE 1910
Vol. XL No. 48
SATURDAY, DECEMBER 23, 1950
5c per Copy
Page 181
"Great White Father
WW
Editor's Note: Because of the impact of federal aid, not only on our
state, but on our local governments,
we are publishing this article detailing federal aid to the State of Washington. With all-out mobilization
ahead, federal aid will in all probability be further increased—particularly for civil defense.
Thirty-five years ago federal
aid to the State of Washington
totalled $140,000. In 1950 it will
amount to about $46,000,000, or a
328-fold increase.
Even in the past decade, federal
aid to the State of Washington has
trebled, and the pattern is the same
in all states.
Our state's share of the grants-in-
aid made by the "great white father"
are about average among the states
in the nation, although on a per capita basis we provide slightly more in
federal taxes than average. We are
19th in rank in payments to the federal government, and 25th in grants-
in-aid.
In 1948 Washingtonians received
back 18.55 per cent of the amount
paid in federal taxes. This percentage probably has changed only
slightly.
Generally speaking, the states providing the most federal revenue receive back the smallest proportion
in grants-in-aid. In New York
state, for example, federal grants
totalled only 5.5 per cent of federal
revenue collected, while Mississippi
received back 96 per cent of federal
revenue collected in the state.
Here are the pros and cons voiced
whenever the controversial subject
of federal aid is discussed:
IN FAVOR:
1. Federal aid is a useful and flexible device for joining together fed
eral, state and local governments in
common enterprises.
2. Federal aid is a desirable method of financing essential services
which are beyond the means of
First Things First
The desire of the Seattle Park Board to "get going" on
their uncompleted projects before the construction "freeze"
or before the city council withdraws their funds has caused
considerable lifting of eyebrows.
But let's not adopt a holier-than-thou attitude.
Today we are all saying: "Let's increase prices before the
freeze . . . we must get our salaries increased before they
clamp on a ceiling . . . we'd better get a new car while we can
. . . let's get a good supply of sugar before the hoarders buy
it all up."
Unwillingness to accept the total mobilization which events
demand is not a shortcoming of Washington alone. We're all
guilty. We want to continue "normalcy" as long as possible.
What should our local government do in our present national emergency?
First, there should be a halt in unessential spending. And
by this we don't mean just stopping the construction of bird
baths in our parks. Our "minimum standards" in education,
public buildings and every other public (and private) enterprise have become luxuriously high.
Second, when local public employees are drafted for military service, or they enter war production service, officials
should ask themselves, "how can we get along without this
position," instead of "who can we get to replace him."
Third, local governmental activities should be drastically
curtailed unless they meet the acid test: "Is it directly contributory to our mobilization effort?"
It is time we put first things first—in our local government
and in our private lives.

-* MUNICIPAL LEAGUE OF SEATTLE *
LEADERSHIP IN THE PRESERVATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SINCE 1910
Vol. XL No. 48
SATURDAY, DECEMBER 23, 1950
5c per Copy
Page 181
"Great White Father
WW
Editor's Note: Because of the impact of federal aid, not only on our
state, but on our local governments,
we are publishing this article detailing federal aid to the State of Washington. With all-out mobilization
ahead, federal aid will in all probability be further increased—particularly for civil defense.
Thirty-five years ago federal
aid to the State of Washington
totalled $140,000. In 1950 it will
amount to about $46,000,000, or a
328-fold increase.
Even in the past decade, federal
aid to the State of Washington has
trebled, and the pattern is the same
in all states.
Our state's share of the grants-in-
aid made by the "great white father"
are about average among the states
in the nation, although on a per capita basis we provide slightly more in
federal taxes than average. We are
19th in rank in payments to the federal government, and 25th in grants-
in-aid.
In 1948 Washingtonians received
back 18.55 per cent of the amount
paid in federal taxes. This percentage probably has changed only
slightly.
Generally speaking, the states providing the most federal revenue receive back the smallest proportion
in grants-in-aid. In New York
state, for example, federal grants
totalled only 5.5 per cent of federal
revenue collected, while Mississippi
received back 96 per cent of federal
revenue collected in the state.
Here are the pros and cons voiced
whenever the controversial subject
of federal aid is discussed:
IN FAVOR:
1. Federal aid is a useful and flexible device for joining together fed
eral, state and local governments in
common enterprises.
2. Federal aid is a desirable method of financing essential services
which are beyond the means of
First Things First
The desire of the Seattle Park Board to "get going" on
their uncompleted projects before the construction "freeze"
or before the city council withdraws their funds has caused
considerable lifting of eyebrows.
But let's not adopt a holier-than-thou attitude.
Today we are all saying: "Let's increase prices before the
freeze . . . we must get our salaries increased before they
clamp on a ceiling . . . we'd better get a new car while we can
. . . let's get a good supply of sugar before the hoarders buy
it all up."
Unwillingness to accept the total mobilization which events
demand is not a shortcoming of Washington alone. We're all
guilty. We want to continue "normalcy" as long as possible.
What should our local government do in our present national emergency?
First, there should be a halt in unessential spending. And
by this we don't mean just stopping the construction of bird
baths in our parks. Our "minimum standards" in education,
public buildings and every other public (and private) enterprise have become luxuriously high.
Second, when local public employees are drafted for military service, or they enter war production service, officials
should ask themselves, "how can we get along without this
position," instead of "who can we get to replace him."
Third, local governmental activities should be drastically
curtailed unless they meet the acid test: "Is it directly contributory to our mobilization effort?"
It is time we put first things first—in our local government
and in our private lives.